Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: It contains 92% of dry lands ecosystem and hundreds and hundreds of mammal, bird, amphibians and reptile species and ecological value to capture a significant amount of CO2 to support climate mitigation and adaptation.
Evidence B:The area this EOI covers is vast and cuts across seven political counties across Kenya and a number of ecological zones, It is a river basin dubbed a ’cradle of biological and cultural diversity. It has been managed by different indigenous pastoralist communities for centuries and its preservation is critical for the sustainability of their livelihoods.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: It covers 47,655km square
Evidence B:Yes. Very. The basin contains significant levels of biodiversity and has ample ecological value including the potential to capture significant amounts of CO2 to support climate mitigation and adaptation. It also aims at restoring degraded range lands and in so doing improve soil carbon storage.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: It started off with very strong cultural and traditional leadership and then weakened gradually through colonialists settled in the laikipia plateau and to date they occupy a larger chunk of land and territories in this region
Evidence B:The basin is utilized by different pastoralist communities drawing upon their indigenous cultural knowledge of resource management to sustain the area as well as their livelihoods. The knowledge is ancient dating back to 1600 BC and it is a highly specialized form of transhumance which allows strategic mobility of herds to achieve sustainable utilization of spatial resources given precarious climatic conditions.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: So much of the time was spent in explaining traditional leadership system in question 2 but the unique cultural significance is explained in in Q4. Communities as custodians of Biodiversity and sacred sites
Evidence B:The uniqueness of the basin is properly articulated in the EOI. It clearly relates the intricate manner in which cultural knowledge is drawn upon for the utilization and management of spatial resources for long term sustainability. It shows a clear understanding of the significance of the basin as a globally unique and important facility.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The threats are high including the lose of land and land cover change, over exploitation of natural resources, investments in high infrastructure like LAPSET, cultural erosion among other threats have been cited
Evidence B:Since the basin cuts across a number of political regions, its management requires action from many stakeholders some of whom do not necessarily appreciate the uniqueness of the whole basin. It is urgent that the importance of the area as well as the planned action be shared by all users. This is likely to reduce potential and real threats to the facility.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The regulations and policies are there but lack implementing regulations
Evidence B:Yes. The legislative and policy framework has been gradually changing over the past two decades in favour of a return to traditional ways of utilizing resources in dry lands. The national policy on arid and semi arid regions as well as the 2010 constitution of Kenya have both lend support to customary management of resources including mobile pastoralism.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The regulations and policies that support IPLC-led conservation are many but no implementation
Evidence B:National government have demostrated support to customary land management systems through the enactment of the 2010 Kenya constitution. Community Land Act was also passed in 2016 also provides the necessary legal framework. Similarly, some of the county governments such as Samburu county is also considering institutionalizing this IPLC led conservation system in their draft range land policy. It is also apparent that other partners are all on board to promote ideas expressed therein.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Certainly very relevant IPLC led conservation projects have been established very well
Evidence B:There are some examples of ICCAs in Kenya that have received national and international recognition that could provide foundation for scaling up. The sacred Kaya forest groves of the coastal zone are one such example. They have been recognised for their cultural and biological protected under the Antiquities Act as National Monuments. At the same time Marine Parks and coral reefs in the same region have also received recognition such that defined groups of users have been granted rights to establish ‘Locally Managed Marine Areas’ (LMMA) to co-manage and conserve marine resources.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There is consistency in the alignment of projects goals
Evidence B:IMPACT have partnered with Wetlands International and PfR that work in the same area on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) at Ewaso Ng’iro River Basin . This work has focused on improved management of ecosystems and associated resources as a basis for resilient indigenous communities and landscapes. There are also a number of other complementary activities in the same area.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Its very well and clearly outlined
Evidence B:It is well aligned since it focuses on utilizing indigenous governance systems of environmental management -such as elders, age-set leaders and spiritual leaders to play the role of community legislative mechanisms to advise on the use of natural resources for the area. This establishes a regulatory framework for the management of water and range resources for livestock. The EOI aims at strengthening these systems for long term sustainability and deliver global environmental benefits.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: This is very well presented and quite convincing and achievable
Evidence B:The objective for this EOI are very clearly indicated and are cohesive with the activities and time frame.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Very clear and realistic and achievable
Evidence B:The EOI is led by indigenous people and have clear ideas on how planned activities and objectives will address identified threats. The plans are quite ambitious but they are also realistic.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: activities are well aligned with with EoI
Evidence B:The organization has had many years of experience in similar projects and the activities /results are exceptionally well aligned with EOI range of investment.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Several sources of Co-financing named
Evidence B:The EOI has indicate many partners and the range of support they provide. Some of them have been supporting the organization for a long time.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Its estimated at 4,480,488Ha very high above 1,000,000Ha
Evidence B:Substantial amounts of funding have been received before by this EOI. It has a high potential of realizing desired results.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: moderately aligned to project goals
Evidence B:The EOI has drawn very appropriate cultural and livelihood indicators derived from project goals, All gender and age categories play culturally appropriate roles to realize project objectives,
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: certainly there will be a medium term sustainability which future funding will hopefully build on
Evidence B:Yes. The EOI has clearly indicated how its objectives will realize long term biodiversity benefits utilizing IPLC governance system.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: citation of several international instruments such as UNCCC, CBD, NBSAP among many , demonstrated knowledge and experience in these instruments
Evidence B:The EOI is fully aware of all relevant county and national policy and legal frameworks that have the potential of advancing environmental priorities.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: SDG 3,5,8 are mentioned and and activities are herein proposed, though no mention of a gender mainstreaming polciy
Evidence B:The EOI is very well versed in constitutional requirements vis a vis gender and has applied them in the application.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: its a well thought out EoI
Evidence B:TMPACT is the most innovative of all the EOIs. It has high potential in realizing the desired objectives.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Ewaso Nyiro Basin even as the name suggests is fully IPLC
Evidence B:Yes. Most significant positions are occupied by Indigenous people whose capacity are reasonably high.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Well leader in the region for many years
Evidence B:The EOI shows that Indigenous peoples are the ones in charge of the initiative over a long period of time,
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: This is well thought out and evident from the EoI
Evidence B:There are many partners and networks with whom the organization works. The networks are spread within the region, nationally and internationally. It works closely with other IPLC organizations.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Full capacity though not GEF
Evidence B:The personnel of the organization have the relevant skills and long term experience in environmental management issues including GEF.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: moderate capacity has been demosntrated
Evidence B:The EOI meets all the required criteria and has demonstrated performance accumulated over a long time.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Examples are cited of participation in the review of world bank standards and safe guards for indigenous peoples
Evidence B:The organization is well versed in all relevant safeguards.